The political revolution has let Tim Canova down. Bernie Sanders hasn’t shown up to campaign for his chosen primary challenger to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. Heading into a Florida Democratic primary on Tuesday, Canova is behind by double digits in recent polling and looks likely to lose the race.

But that’s only part of the story. Former staffers at Our Revolution, the organization created to act as a successor to the Sanders campaign, believe the group did not do as much as it should have to help Canova in his bid to defeat the veteran Florida congresswoman.

A number of staffers who resigned from Our Revolution in protest over how it has been run say the organization’s 501(c)(4) status made it impossible to coordinate strategy with the Canova campaign, leaving the campaign worse off as a result. At least some departing staffers believe the organization should be set up under a different legal structure so that it can coordinate with candidates it endorses in the future and do more to help them win.

Latest from Politics

“I would absolutely say the prohibition on coordinating hurt the Canova campaign,” said Paul Schaffer, the former data and analytics director for Our Revolution. "We have an enormous core of dedicated volunteers. But when Our Revolution was set up as a 501(c)(4), that prevented us from mobilizing that big pool of Bernie supporters to work jointly with the campaign to get out the vote.”

Former Our Revolution staffers emphasize that they don’t fault Sanders for the way the organization has been managed. (Sanders has clarified that he will not be controlling or directing the organization.) Instead, many staffers who resigned blame Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s former campaign manager who was recently brought in to run Our Revolution, for the decision to operate the organization as a 501(c)(4).

The set-up appears to have caused organizational challenges and legal headaches. According to former volunteer engagement manager Ceci Hall, since Our Revolution wasn’t able to coordinate voter contact efforts with the campaign, a task that involved directing volunteers to call voters and encourage them to support the Canova campaign and get out to vote, some voters ended up receiving calls from both the campaign and Our Revolution.

At one point, according to Hall, the Canova campaign even notified Our Revolution that people had started to complain that they were receiving what amounted to duplicate calls, and requested that the organization stop its calls. Our Revolution decided to stop phone banking as a result. “That was really frustrating,” she said. “We were trying, but our help wasn't as effective as it could have been because we weren't able to coordinate directly.” When asked if his campaign notified Our Revolution to let them know that there were duplicate calls, and asked them to stop, Canova said in an e-mail: “Yes, I believe we contacted Our Rev[olution] about the duplicate calls and got them to stop.”

It’s possible that in an attempt to avoid coordination, the campaign and Our Revolution actually ended up violating campaign finance law. “I think this is evidence of coordination,” Larry Noble, the general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said after hearing that description of events. Noble noted that “it’s a bit trickier” to judge whether an agreement not to do something would count as coordination, but added “at the very least, the information justifies an investigation into what was actually said.”

“I don’t believe any rules were violated at this point,” Jeff Weaver said in an interview, though he noted that he “can’t attest to anything they did or didn’t do before I came on board here.” Weaver said one reason he had been brought in to help manage the organization was “to make sure things were done completely by the books here,” saying “there was less appreciation of that by people who were then here, who are no longer here.”

“As far as I know, any discussions that anyone in my campaign had with anyone in Senator Sanders’ campaign occurred before anyone was informed that there was a new entity with a 501(c)(4) status by the name of Our Revolution,” Canova said in an e-mail.

Legal scrutiny and controversy over mass resignations at the organization overshadowed its public launch last week. It looks like the growing pains aren’t over yet.

There’s a lot more at stake than the Florida primary race. When Sanders started winding down his presidential campaign, he called onsupporters to “start running for school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and governorships.” First-time candidates are likely to need more help running a campaign than veteran politicians. The question now is whether Sanders, Our Revolution, and his supporters will be able to give candidates inspired by that call to action what they need to win.

“I thought the goal would be to take what we had done on the campaign, and ​continue to do that.”

Our Revolution will have difficulty harnessing the potential of Sanders’ grassroots movement if it can’t effectively deploy volunteers and other recruits to work for campaigns or provide direct support to a new wave of candidates who have never run for office. If the organization fails to live up to the standards set by the insurgent presidential campaign, Sanders supporters are sure to be disappointed.

There are several reasons why 501(c)(4) status seems ill-suited for Our Revolution. 501(c)(4)s are a type of non-profit organization that can accept unlimited amounts of money without disclosing donors—a set up that could put the group at odds with the way Sanders raised money during the presidential election by shunning wealthy donors and relying on small-dollar donations. 501(c)(4)s also cannot engage in political activity as their primary purpose. According to Noble of the Campaign Legal Center, a 501(c)(4) such as Our Revolution would not be permitted to coordinate directly with campaigns it is supporting. That could make it harder for Our Revolution to help progressive candidates win elections.

Former staffers say the way the group has been set up to operate isn’t what they signed up for.“I thought the goal would be to take what we had done on the campaign, and ​continue to do that,​ but helping many candidates instead of just one,” Schaffer said. “How can you do that effectively if you can’t even talk to the campaigns?”

Other progressive advocacy groups that endorse and support candidates have opted to operate as traditional political action committees, in part because of the strategic value of coordinating with campaigns.

"It's vital to be able to work directly with candidates, to know what their internal strategy is and to contribute to it," said Stephanie Taylor, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which runs a political action committee that endorses and helps progressive candidates. "Starting up a campaign is like setting up and running a small business in twelve to eighteen months. It can be daunting, especially if you've never done it before. But since we can talk to the campaigns, we're able to come in and help out with that process."

Taylor believes there's a useful role for Our Revolution, and added that the PCCC has expressed an interest and willingness in collaborating with the group toward a common goal of electing progressive candidates.

Canova certainly sounds like a candidate who has been let down. He has publicly lamented the fact that Sanders hasn’t campaigned for him, despite hinting that he might. “The rule against me and my campaign having contact with Our Revolution and Senator Sanders did indeed make it more difficult to work with the group, and perhaps impeded our efforts to solicit assistance for my campaign,” Canova said when asked specifically about the organization. He added: “We were in the middle of selecting dates for Senator Sanders to campaign for me in South Florida when the 501(c)(4) status of Our Revolution prevented any meaningful communication, and the plans went nowhere.”

Still, there are are plenty of ways that Sanders, his supporters, and Our Revolution, have helped the Canova campaign. Sanders risked backlash from the political establishment when he endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s challenger in the midst of his own campaign, but did it anyway. The endorsement upped Canova’s name recognition, and won him credibility with supporters of the senator.

Sanders, and Our Revolution, have also helped bring in a significant amount of money to support Canova’s primary bid. Sanders and his allies sent out e-mail solicitations asking for money on behalf of Canova during the presidential primary election, and afterward in a message sent out by by Our Revolution.

Even so, Wasserman Schultz appears to be on the verge of victory. The Florida congresswoman who resigned from the DNC in disgrace after an email leak showed her privately insulting the Sanders campaign is widely disliked in the Democratic Party, but she has many advantages in her district. One is institutional: High-ranking-ranking Democrats have showedup in Florida to praise Wasserman Schultz ahead of her primary. Another has to do with demographics: The Washington Post reported in May that the “Miami area district just doesn’t seem to be made up of the kinds of voters who want to stick it to the Democratic establishment.”

Weaver said he hopes Canova wins, adding that “he’s shown there’s a tremendous amount of discomfort with Representative Wasserman Schultz, both in terms of her handling of matters at the DNC as well as some of the positions she’s taken.” Weaver called Sanders’s efforts to help Canova “incredible,” though he conceded “you’re obviously not going to win every race.”

He defended Our Revolution’s 501(c)(4) status. “We’re not just involved in federal campaigns. We are involved in ballot initiatives, educational activities, a whole host of activities, and this is just the most appropriate vehicle for doing that in my view,” he said. Grassroots organizing will be “a critical, and indispensable part of any strategy to transform this country,” Weaver said, though “there are other modern tools of campaigning, including television, which also play an important role.” He added that Our Revolution “will have a policy to disclose larger donations” and that “we may in fact establish an affiliated PAC [political action committee]” at some point in the future.

Trying to unseat Wasserman Shultz was always going to be difficult. It’s also virtually impossible to boil down a political loss, or a win for that matter, to a single factor. Still, if Canova loses, that could be an early warning sign that Sanders’ revolution will take far more than raising money and endorsing candidates. Canova doesn’t seem to hold anything against Sanders, though. “I’m not trying to fault him,” he told me in an interview last week. “He’s a human being, and he’s probably trying to gather himself together before his next big expenditure of energy.”

The political revolution after the end of the Sanders campaign is just getting started, and a lot could change. Our Revolution is also just one part of it. There are plenty of Sanders supporters who want to carry on the work of keeping the movement alive, regardless of what happens to the organization. Our Revolution could end up as one group in a constellation of organizations created to take up the mantle of the Sanders campaign.

Yet the organization still stands as the most visible symbol of the future of the revolution, apart from the senator himself. If it is deemed a failure, that could prove demoralizing for Sanders supporters. The organization will have to navigate more challenges ahead. As it does, Sanders supporters will have to decide whether they will stand by Our Revolution, and the senator, as this next chapter of the political revolution unfolds in all its imperfection.

About the Author

Most Popular

Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits had the chance to signal to Trump that his attacks on law enforcement are unacceptable—but they sent the opposite message.

President Trump raged at his TV on Sunday morning. And yet on balance, he had a pretty good weekend. He got a measure of revenge upon the hated FBI, firing former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe two days before his pension vested. He successfully coerced his balky attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into speeding up the FBI’s processes to enable the firing before McCabe’s retirement date.

Beyond this vindictive fun for the president, he achieved something politically important. The Trump administration is offering a not very convincing story about the McCabe firing. It is insisting that the decision was taken internally by the Department of Justice, and that the president’s repeated and emphatic demands—public and private—had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Last May, TheWashington Post’s James Hohmann noted “an uncovered dynamic” that helped explain the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare. Three current Democratic House members had opposed the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. Twelve Democratic House members represent districts that Donald Trump won. Yet none voted for repeal. The “uncovered dynamic,” Hohmann suggested, was Nancy Pelosi’s skill at keeping her party in line.

She’s been keeping it in line for more than a decade. In 2005, George W. Bush launched his second presidential term with an aggressive push to partially privatize Social Security. For nine months, Republicans demanded that Democrats admit the retirement system was in crisis and offer their own program to change it. Pelosi refused. Democratic members of Congress hosted more than 1,000 town-hall meetings to rally opposition to privatization. That fall, Republicans backed down, and Bush’s second term never recovered.

Invented centuries ago in France, the bidet has never taken off in the States. That might be changing.

“It’s been completely Americanized!” my host declares proudly. “The bidet is gone!” In my time as a travel editor, this scenario has become common when touring improvements to hotels and resorts around the world. My heart sinks when I hear it. To me, this doesn’t feel like progress, but prejudice.

Americans seem especially baffled by these basins. Even seasoned American travelers are unsure of their purpose: One globe-trotter asked me, “Why do the bathrooms in this hotel have both toilets and urinals?” And even if they understand the bidet’s function, Americans often fail to see its appeal. Attempts to popularize the bidet in the United States have failed before, but recent efforts continue—and perhaps they might even succeed in bringing this Old World device to new backsides.

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory

One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

As the Trump presidency approaches a troubling tipping point, it’s time to find the right term for what’s happening to democracy.

Here is something that, even on its own, is astonishing: The president of the United States demanded the firing of the former FBI deputy director, a career civil servant, after tormenting him both publicly and privately—and it worked.

The American public still doesn’t know in any detail what Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed late Friday night, is supposed to have done. But citizens can see exactly what Donald Trump did to McCabe. And the president’s actions are corroding the independence that a healthy constitutional democracy needs in its law enforcement and intelligence apparatus.

McCabe’s firing is part of a pattern. It follows the summary removal of the previous FBI director and comes amid Trump’s repeated threats to fire the attorney general, the deputy attorney, and the special counsel who is investigating him and his associates. McCabe’s ouster unfolded against a chaotic political backdrop which includes Trump’s repeated calls for investigations of his political opponents, demands of loyalty from senior law enforcement officials, and declarations that the job of those officials is to protect him from investigation.

Much more than time separates the 27th president from the 45th: from their vastly different views on economics, to their conceptions of the presidency itself.

As Donald Trump’s executive orders punishing steel and aluminum imports threaten a trade war around the globe, Republicans on Capitol Hill are debating whether to reassert Congress’s ultimate constitutional authority over tariffs and trade. This isn’t the first time the GOP has split itself in two on the question of protective tariffs. But the last time, just over 100 years ago, the Republican president’s policies were the exact opposite of Trump’s.

William Howard Taft—in his opposition to populism and protectionism, as well as his devotion to constitutional limits on the powers of the presidency—was essentially the anti-Trump. Unlike the current president, and his own predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft refused to rule by executive order, insisting that the chief executive could only exercise those powers that the Constitution explicitly authorizes.

Among the more practical advice that can be offered to international travelers is wisdom of the bathroom. So let me say, as someone who recently returned from China, that you should be prepared to one, carry your own toilet paper and two, practice your squat.

I do not mean those goofy chairless sits you see at the gym. No, toned glutes will not save you here. I mean the deep squat, where you plop your butt down as far as it can go while staying aloft and balanced on the heels. This position—in contrast to deep squatting on your toes as most Americans naturally attempt instead—is so stable that people in China can hold it for minutes and perhaps even hours ...

The debate around sexual-harassment legislation is playing out in the Maryland General Assembly, where reform advocates say leadership is loath to embrace changes.

In Maryland, legislative sessions run 90 days, from January through early April. On the final day of each session—commonly referred to by the Latin term sine die—the capital city of Annapolis lets its hair down. There is dining and dancing and parties galore as aides, lawmakers, and lobbyists celebrate having survived the season.

A few years back, at one sine die soiree hosted by a legislator, a former Annapolis aide (who requested anonymity because she remains involved in Maryland politics) took to the dance floor. “I was dancing a little bit by myself,” she recalled. “All of a sudden I hear, ‘You’re packing a little bit more than I thought back here!’ I turn around, and this legislator is dancing right behind me. I was like, ‘Ooookay. This is a little weird. I know your wife and kids.’ So I tried to subtly move away.” The legislator followed, recalled the ex-aide. And then: “He got aroused.” The young woman made a swift escape, and, she informed me, “I have not spoken to that legislator one-on-one since.”

Scholars have been sounding the alarm about data-harvesting firms for nearly a decade. The latest Cambridge Analytica scandal shows it may be too late to stop them.

On Friday night, Facebook suspended the account of Cambridge Analytica, the political-data company backed by the billionaire Robert Mercer that consulted on both the Brexit and Trump campaigns.

The action came just before The Guardian and The New York Timesdropped major reports in which the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie alleged that Cambridge Analytica had used data that an academic had allegedly improperly exfiltrated from the social network. These new stories, backed by Wylie’s account and internal documents, followed years of reporting by The Guardianand The Intercept about the possible problem.

The details could seem Byzantine. Aleksandr Kogan, then a Cambridge academic, founded a company, Global Science Research, and immediately took on a major client, Strategic Communication Laboratories, which eventually gave birth to Cambridge Analytica. (Steve Bannon, an adviser to the company and a former senior adviser to Trump, reportedly picked the name.)

The Supreme Court will consider the rights of crisis pregnancy centers, which help women “imagine what the choice of life would be like.”

Abortion is back in the Supreme Court this week. On Tuesday, the justices will hear a case on crisis pregnancy centers, the facilities established by pro-life organizations around the country to counsel women against abortion. In 2015, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act, requiring licensed clinics that provide certain services—including ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, and advice on birth control—to post information about affordable abortion and contraception services offered by the state. Unlicensed facilities that provide these services have to disclose their lack of medical certification. A network of crisis pregnancy centers, including the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), sued in response, arguing that the government is violating their right to free speech by forcing them to promote abortion.